More IPCC AR5: THE SECRET SANTA LEAK

Guest post by Donna Laframboise

Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle, bringing in Greenpeace again.

A week before Christmas, three data sticks containing 661 files and amounting to nearly one gigabyte of material came into my possession. They were created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body currently at work on a high-profile report.

Due to be released in stages starting in September, this report will be promoted by government press conferences the world over. Officials will point to its findings and continue to spend billions on climate change measures.

The IPCC has confirmed the authenticity of sample documents on these sticks. Today, I’m making this massive collection of data, (with reviewer comments), which I call the Secret Santa leak, public. Some of these documents are already online. Many others would only have been released by the IPCC years from now. Still others the IPCC intended to keep hidden forever.

There’s a lot of information here and I’ve only examined a small portion of it so far. But a few things are certain. First, this leak – together with the one that occurred last month – places draft versions of a majority of the IPCC’s upcoming report in the public domain. Forty-four out of 60 chapters – 73% – are now available for examination. The claim, by the IPCC’s chairman, that this is a “totally transparent” organization and that whatever it does is “available for scrutiny at every stage” is closer than ever to being true.

Second, the IPCC hasn’t learned a thing from the Himalayan glacier scandal. Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” it recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.

A 2010 investigation identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.” The time to shine light on this organization is now. If activists employed by lobby groups can read draft versions of this report, so can the public.

I encourage you to download your own copies. If anyone has the technical skill to make all of this data available – and searchable – online, that would be welcome, indeed.

First Order Draft torrent: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FEABA896B40807B21E34138183CFE28C2962B248&dn=WGIIAR5_FODall.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

please leave your client active for a few hours to help speed up other people’s download

Donna, many passionate thanks for your courageous work. I sometimes wonder why we can’t all get together and fund a legitimate, statistically valid survey of scientists regarding their degree of acceptance of the IPCC position and the CAGW case in general. Whenever I get into an argument with an alarmist, they almost always bring up that absurd 97 percent number..If we could demonstrate that there is indeed a significant percentage of smart, qualified people with profound reservations, well, I can’t think of a more powerful argument against the establishment position and the widespread laughable belief that the “science is settled.” And yet I never hear of anyone suggesting something along these lines…

OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..

I was hoping the announcement was going to be a cancellation of the report and a disbandment of the IPCC. That would be the appropriate response to the ‘1st Rule of Holes’.
Those are huge files for old computers and computer old folks, but I do agree with Mango – wow!

Great work – I hope we have the people on here to make best use of all this information.
How to make those who should read and study all this, is the question. Prince Charles this week has been a prime example of those who claim to understand the arguments and have the ears of the media, yet fail to follow the scientific case, to keep up with developments, or to ever question their own basic premises.

I wonder if it even worth paying or giving any attention to such a discredited organization as the IPCC. This sort of thing of gives them some “sort of an authority” which they should not even have.Most of the output is pure BS anyway. Surely they will be diluting the message over the years as climate does not “change”the way they want it to, but still waste billions of dollars on a non- event

¡Vive l’information!
As usual, the alarmists are doing everything they can to suppress information; the non-alarmists are doing everything they can to liberate it.
I think we can safely say the myth about non-alarmists being anti-science stands busted without the possibility of parole. Who’s in denial now, biatches?

The magnet links don’t seem to work as listed here. The ones at her site do work however.
The following in an example of her link that works for the first one in the list.
A difference seems to be a ? near the beginning that is missing.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FE53DEE7870921017E63678647B78281F56F45A2&dn=blue.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ffr33domtracker.h33t.com%3a3310%2fannounce

Sam the First says:
January 8, 2013 at 7:18 am
Re your Prince Charles comment there is no fool like an old fool and he fits both descriptions.
If the Prince’s ideas were clothes he would be in rags today. Would his courtiers tell him?

On Transparancy:
I can say without question given [you’re] not with the Greenpeace agenda they will be totally transparent when they tell you that your not welcome any longer inside Greenpeace.
“Your kind is not welcome” “You right wing baby killer vietnam vet” “Get lost or else”
That after getting the life membership.
“Flushed That”
Their agenda too is transparent should you care to see.

Pokerguy:
Your idea deserves serious consideration, I think.
I expect that kind of statistic (the huge percentage of the scientific community that rejects climate alarmism) might be a very persuasive number to have at our fingertips, but for the wrong reasons.
I think we’ve all had the experience of trying to explain to a believer, at some point, that consensus isn’t evidence. (I used to say, “consensus is not proof”, but that’s too weak—it’s not evidence, period.)
As it becomes increasingly clear how many scientists are on our “side” and it occurs to us that the consensus fallacy would support climate calmism, not alarmism, it raises a real moral dilemma: do we stoop to using it ourselves? Are we willing to persuade innocent bystanders that way, or would that make us no better than the reprehensible Naomi Oreskes?
Thoughts?

Marvelous! It’s most reassuring to see that a few brave souls still exist to “commit acts of journalism”
I hope your courage can inspire another generation to abandon popular agendas, investigate, and report the facts.
Forget Woodward-Bernstein – we need more Donnas.

Donna, I heard your speech at the ICCC8 in München and was very impressed by all the work you had done to expose the “delinquent teenager”. This again will give a lot of work, but I am sure the results will be a more transparant exposure of all the behind the scene manipulations at the IPCC… Thanks a lot!

“Second, the IPCC hasn’t learned a thing from the Himalayan glacier scandal. Under the guise of “scientific expert review,” it recently permitted aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying of its authors by WWF employees and other activists. The draft version of the Working Group 2 report currently lists publications produced by the WWF and Greenpeace among its end-of-chapter references.”
This should not come as any surprise to anyone. WWF and IPCC working together with the climate indu$try to taint AR5?? Perish the thought!

iskoob,
I really appreciate your well considered response. Sometimes I get really frustrated because I simply can’t understand why there doesn’t seem to be some enthusiasm for what to my admittedly small brain, would seem an obviously effective counter-stratgy. I would answer your question this way: we would not be using consensus thinking to buttress a scientific hypothesis that seems at odds with real world data, but simply demonstrating that there are doubts concerning that hypothesis. I’m not smart enough to reduce this to some sort of formulation, but it nonetheless seems an intuitively valid defense. Skepticism and doubt are the very foundations of good science. Where it exists, it needs to be acknowledged..
Make any sense?

pokerguy,
Good explanation. I’ll leave it for others to make arguments for/against such a strategy.
Personally, whenever I point out the apparent size of the counter-consensus (though we don’t know the figures accurately enough), I always try to be explicit about what it proves.
The sheer number of scientific dissenters proves, I say:
1. that the “consensus” is a myth and that the Goreskes crowd are dishonest, and are therefore not to be trusted.
2. that scientists clearly don’t have to be paid shills or cranks in order to find the (supposedly overwhelming) evidence for CAGW wanting, unless one seriously believes that (for example) half the English-speaking world’s meteorologists and most of its geologists are paid shills or cranks—and this stretches the bounds of credulity
More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?

Sorry to be so thick: but WHO’S DONNA?!
A journalist?? A climatologist?? A skeptical environmental campaigner??
Sorry to be so unworldly, but this chappie on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean doesn’t have a clue who she is!![go and have a look at her site. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/08/the-secret-santa-leak/ . . she is quite awesome . . mod]

Based on the headings you have listed in the article, this is one of the first definitive pieces of evidence for unelected one world government through the auspices of the UN.
I do not believe one single party in my country was elected on the platform that ‘we will abrogate all responsibility for the economic implications of climate change, if it is indeed significant enough to warrant major economic changes, to an unelected arm of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’
I also object to the fact that the UK Ambassador to the UN has absolutely no ability to influence this in any way, short of recommending to HMG to withdraw from the UN until it is dismantled. This would be a highly ‘courageous’ suggestion in the absence of the USA, Canada, Russia, China and India doing likewise at the same time.
In my judgement the question needs to be asked as to where in the world a court exists with sufficient power to stop the IPCC acting, based on false science, unspoken redistributionist agendas and using unelected demagoguery.
If it doesn’t exist, then one has to ask why the UN should be allowed to continue to exist, not subject to the checks and balances of world society.
The question must be asked: ‘on whose authority should a never-ending blank cheque to impoverish the USA and Europe be authorised? Avaricious recipient governments in developing nations is not a good enough reason……’

I wonder how much good it does to publish this stuff ahead of time. Gives them too much opportunity to change the message or take the bad bits out. I think that releasing the infamous 10 10 child murdering video was a mistake of a similar sort. It alerted the ‘Faithfull’ to the reality that their film would not go down well with the public, so they pulled it, and most of the public never got to see what these lunatics had produced. Better to have let them go ahead and publish on MSM. Is this ‘Leak’ a similar mistake?

It is time for a real Open Source Climate Science program. ALL data, methods, models, results would be fully available and repeatable to anyone who cares to look. The pieces are there.
Anyone have a robust MySQL server available to host the data from these files?

All valid comments but we still have the problem of proving a negative. When speaking with alarmists they can quote all the spurious science from IPCC supporters but the skeptics case is rather piecemeal. Some central coordination along the lines of pokerguy’s suggestion would be welcome and I think very effective.

The strategy for sidestepping climate change and staying in business is revealed in Chapter 20. Global warming didn’t work, climate is likewise crumbling because they are data driven testable phenomena. Chapter 20 however introduces the importance of “sustainability.” And in their words what is this mysterious goal? “A summary definition is development that achieves continuing human progress and assures a sustainable relationship with a physical environment that is already under stress, reconciling tradeoffs among economic, environmental, and other social goals through institutional approaches that are equitable and participative in order themselves to be sustainable.”
Got it? A definition that can mean anything they want. When the word itself is used twice in the definition you know a fast one is being pulled.

Major Findings
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.Scientists still debate the dangers A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.A need to know more Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.
Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.Climate scientists are skeptical of the media Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.
Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable.Are climate scientists being pressured to deny or advance global warming? Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work.
Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors.Changing scientific opinion In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.
We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:
In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today.
In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared to three out of four (74%) today.
The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991.
The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from 20% to 32%.
Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007.

Good and important work in opening up this process. In the USA we continue to dream of defunding this entire fiasco. Once upon a time I thought those who wanted the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN were tin-foil hat types. I am now proud to stand with them sun glinting off my hat and all.

….Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”….

Donna Laframboise,
What can you say about the source of the leak?
Does the person(s) have reasons to hide identity? What are they?
Are all persons responsible for the leak within the IPCC? What general affiliation do any non-IPCC leakers have? e.g. : government, environment group, reporter, private citizen, university, blogger, bureaucrat, etc.
Same source as CG1 and CG2?
I think the total lack of any back story has implications.
John

Pokerguy, with regards to your suggestion. It would be an interesting project and it would show that there is solid opposition – IF. That if is “if the media publicized it.” Your friend will still be able to say 97% say it’s real because the likelihood of the survey being published is almost as good as finding standing water on Antarctica.

Hey, she lists the following “expert” reviewers. No special interests there then.
Alliance of Small Island States
Centre for Global Change
Conservation International
GenderCC, Women for Climate Justice
Germanwatch
International Rivers
Norwegian Refugee Council
Nourishing the Planet
SeaTrust Institute
Third World Network

iskoob says: January 8, 2013 at 10:39 am
“More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own).”
I absolutely would second this idea. One suggestion: put them on the defensive (as a good defense lawyer would do to a prosecution witness) by asking them apecific, pointed questions and steering them into a conclusion from which they couldn’t escape. One possibility: “So, how much anthropogenic CO2 goes into the atmosphere relative to the total emitted each year?” And, “You’re saying that 3% (~11 ppm) is causing all these effects? How?”

@iskoob
“Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?”
I have done it multiple times. I have followed the CAGW story and argued with alarmists so long that I know every argument they can throw at me and every counter argument to their arguments. I know their conter arguments to their counter arguments. I can overwhelm any alarmist with facts and passion.
But I don’t like to attack them. It leads into a deadlock. Rather attack the stupid arguments made by some climate scientists and make the alarmist himself seem like a bystander to an argument between you and the scientist. It’s easy to win because the scientist is usually not present. 🙂 Mann and Hansen are my favourites.
Teach the listener to see how they are being manipulated. Show how partial truths can be used to make reality seem like something totally different. Tell how to detect weasel words like could, might, may, models say, scientists believe. Tell about the trends of glaciers in Himalaja, Greenland and Antarctica and how the reality can be made to sound something totally different by using cherry-picked facts. How sea level rise hasn’t been accelerating. How global temperatures aren’t rising. Show graphs if you can.
Usually the alarmist brings up the scientific concensus and the IPCC. Use the info on Donna’s book (Delinquent Teenager) to destroy IPCC’s credibility and show how concensus is not really determined by scientists but politicians.
Don’t force the alarmist to believe immediately. It can take a while. But once you have tought him to see the the pattern in alarmist articles and how they relate to the full picture, he will start to notice how he is being manipulated. A “may” here, a “might” there… suddenly he is discussing an article on WUWT with you. 🙂
But the most important thing is to seem like you know what you are talking about. Be a hedgehog because foxes don’t convince anyone. 😉

Donna,
Well done! But don’t you find the new revelations interesting in that they have been revealed by insiders?
For a while I have felt the people we need to hear from are the working stiffs, not the managers. Having spent my career in and around large corporations, I know the manipulation and cherry-picking of conclusions that happens as the “project” travels vertically in an organization. The potential you create at the bottom becomes a certainty in two steps and revolutionary by the fourth. What I wonder is if we are seeing the revolt of the working class …. abetted by the top.
Failure of the project makes the top look bad. The best way to avoid looking bad at the top is if the bottom levels “reconsider”, but the bottom levels have to be different people who can show that their data is “newer” and “improved”. Nobody looks bad if subsequent investigation – initiated by prior researchers who say potential that needed to be studied further – reduces the prize (or threat). This change is why we keep working on something.
No heads have rolled at the IPCC, right? Same with Climategate I and II. Nobody. Odd, don’t you think? Is it true that the top is also disenchanted, and this is the start of their walk down the mountain?
Where next? Insiders with NOAA/NASA? with the New Zealand Met Office? Australian BOM? Is the Al Gore sale to Qatar the public declaration that burning oil doesn’t matter any more?
I’m only a few kilometers away from the Mauna Loa observatory right now. All we really need is some smart kid to reanalyze the CO2 data and suggest that what the Keeling Curve shows is a lot of degassing of the world’s oceans as a CONSEQUENCE of warming, not as a cause of warming, for CAGW to be over. Now wouldn’t THAT be a game changer.

“More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own).”

I think education is the key. They need to understand that while many of the arguments used by the alarmists sound emotionally pleasing, they are seriously flawed on the science. What needs to be pointed out to them is that fear of AGW is being used in order for them to gain support for implementing a political/economic agenda. In order to buy in to the massive diversion of funds from your children to their children, they first need to create a boogeyman to create fear and uncertainty that can only be mitigated if you go along with them. At the most fundamental level, what they are doing is stealing from you but doing so in a way that makes you want to give them your money. It is basically a massive con game.

iskoob says:
………
………… More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). [b]Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer?[/b] How? What works, what doesn’t work?
=======================================================
Yes someone has …… his name is Anthony and he’s probably kicking around here somewhere.
;- )

And they have enabled this game with the Rio treaty and such policy as “sustainable development” where uncertainty is not enough of a reason not to do something. If something is even plausible, that is enough to “mitigate” against the scenario. It also turns the burden of proof on its head and forces one to prove that something isn’t happening. You can not prove a negative. But the key point about the Rio treaty surrounds the word “could”. That is all you need in order to mandate action under sustainable development and in order to stop it, one must prove that it “can’t” happen. It is impossible to prove that something can’t happen. You can only prove that you have no evidence that it HAS happened or IS happening. What has happened here is that policy is now based on potential scenarios as long as some body in the policy making process reaches consensus that it “could” happen. That is the reason why weasel words such as “could”, “might”, and “potentially” appear so often. That is all that is needed. They do not need to show that something *is* happening or is even *likely* to happen, just that it *could* happen.

The whistleblower will already be known to the IPCC. There’s technology to minutely and uniquely alter text so that individual versions of any leak can be traced back. I’d be VERY surprised if the IPCC hadn’t used this technology

Crosspatch says: “Wondering how much money WWF and Greenpeace stand to lose if there is no “global warming” due to CO2 emissions.”
And there’s the rub. These organisations’ fund raising programs are modeled on the time-proven milking techniques of the gullible by the loony cults that infest America’s Bible Belt.
It is a win-win situation for both the gullible and their leadership. The former get to think they are doing something useful with their pointless lives and the latter live like Patchy (we have not heard much from the IPCC’s Pachauri recently) in a style that few of us could imagine and the taxman cannot touch them because of their ‘charitable’ status.

” Political Junkie says: January 8, 2013 at 9:50 am
Donna LaFramboise, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick – three Canadians doing good work! ”
That is what happens when there is no NHL hockey. Canadians have too much time on their hands and get all sorts of stuff done. I’ll bet the IPCC is glad the NHL and players finally struck a deal.
🙂

For any others like Rhys not familiar with Donna Laframboise, check out her blog at:http://nofrackingconsensus.com
Donna has extended her “buy a girl a holiday cocktail” donation page. Her latest work with the Secret Santa papers has shamed me into ordering her book, which I meant to do when it first came out, as well as making a donation.
Without Donna’s efforts, the dreary landscape of IPCC Climate “research” would be much bleaker.

What needs to be pointed out to them is that fear of AGW is being used in order for them to gain support for implementing a political/economic agenda…..

Although this is completely true, it is this message that a lot of people instantly shut down. In their eyes, you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, which closes ears and minds faster than a KKK member discussing racial issues.
The fact that there is a conspiracy doesn’t matter. Once someone perceives that you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, the discussion is over.
The position that the conspirators have placed you in is equal to those who believe man never landed on the moon, there were shooters on the grassy knoll, 9/11 was domestic, etc. etc.
And if you think about it, that was probably the unappreciated genius of the Heartland billboard: it’s not our side that hold the nutty conspiracy theories, it’s the warmists in the company of the unabomber.

In reality the IPCC is acting like any-other UN based organisation , with the transparency of a 12 foot thick reinforced concert wall . Many of its ills can in fact been understood if you take into account that is merely reflects the working ‘practices’ of its parent organisation.

@ Pokerguy.
Somewhere on WUWT is at least one, I think two very good posts on the 97% which make wonderful reading, but I can’t find them. They must be here somewhere.
Hopefully someone has the links at their fingertips.

Rhys Jaggar says:
January 8, 2013 at 8:50 am
Based on the headings you have listed in the article, this is one of the first definitive pieces of evidence for unelected one world government through the auspices of the UN….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do an internet search for “Pascal Lamy” “Global Governance” and you will get a real eye full.
Pascal Lamy is Director General for the World Trade Organization which was championed by ex-President Bill Clinton.
Then go search:
“Pascal Lamy” LSE (London School of Economics)
Bill Clinton LSE
Tony Blair LSE
Fabians LSE
and finally LSE and the guys above with the “Third Way”
You can have lots of fun following all the threads. Add Caroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor and Milner’s Kindergarten and it really gets interesting.

iskoob says:
January 8, 2013 at 10:39 am
…
More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?

Perhaps you need to ask that question of a few really good sales people who have a proven track record selling something to difficult customers.
My understanding is the first step is to find something that they can say “yes” to, one you establish that first point of agreement you take them off the dig in their heels defensive mode, as you are no longer “against them”.
It might be useful to find a way to get them to agree with what constitutes scientific proof. As long as they believe that appeal to authority and such is a valid measure of a theory then the prospect of changing their minds is very slim because it becomes a game of dueling authorities — ( ie my phd is better than your phd ).
It is worth while to note that the pro AGW advocates are in fact doing a very broad scale sales pitch using every hook in the book. Perhaps we need to study up on books written about successful con artists and sales people that could sell cars to people that did not need them. Maybe then we can figure out how to break the con job that gets people to buy into this stuff with nothing but glossy photos and fluff to support it.
Larry

J Martin says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:19 pm
I don’t have those links. But here’s a reply I posted (re the Doran and Anderegg “surveys”) on the Bishop Hill blog (28vi.2011):
The flaws in the Doran paper are well known: (A) it used a hopelessly inadequate sample size (79 respondents) and demographic (nearly all from N America) and (B) in any case, most sceptics would agree with both its propositions: (1) that the world has warmed since the 1700s and (2) that mankind contributed. It made no mention of GHG emissions.
Anderegg is more sophisticated than the hopeless Doran. But there’s a basic problem: it’s concerned with whether or not respondents agree that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most [i.e. more than 50%] of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The only scientists qualified to evaluate that are those engaged in detection and attribution (both difficult and uncertain). Yet the research was not confined to such scientists. [NOTE: moreover, it says nothing about whether or not further emissions are likely to be dangerous/catastrophic.]
And, in any case, the research itself is flawed. First, the total number of “climate researchers” who accepted the above statement was, according to the paper, 903 and the total that did not was 472. In other words, 66% – not the much-claimed 97%. The researchers got their 97% by restricting their findings to researchers “most actively publishing in the field” – in other words, the paper’s findings do not cover all “climate scientists”. Further, it wasn’t an opinion survey at all, but an analysis of scientists who signed pro/anti statements – not the most useful documents. And, again, it was essentially confined to North America and was not concerned with whether or not the warming was dangerous. For these reasons, it’s valueless as a measure of climate scientists’ opinion about the dangers of AGW.
So neither “survey” is evidence of the claimed 97% consensus. But, of course, the overriding point is that science is not done by consensus nor by majority vote. Science requires empirical evidence.

J. Martin:
IMO you’re referring to the Oregon Petition:http://www.petitionproject.org/
There is also, among other such public statements, the letter sent to NASA by former astronauts.
One of the best site summarizing some skeptical positions is aerospace engineer Burt Rutan’s.

J Martin says: January 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm
@ Pokerguy
you said “.If we could demonstrate that there is indeed a significant percentage of smart, qualified people with profound reservations”
There was a petition with the signatures of 30,000 scientists on it opposing the CAGW nonsense. Comfortably beating the 97% of scientists who turned out to only be 75 people.
I can’t find a good link to the 30,000 petiton at the moment, but perhaps someone else here has a better organised set of bookmarks than me.”
—————————————————————-
That link is here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
There are now 31,000 signatures from scientists and engineers, 9,000 with PhD degrees. The petition basically says there is not enough conclusive evidence of AGW to warrant spending money to reduce CO2 emissions.

Three cheers for the IPCC whistleblowers and to the great work of Donna Laframboise. Her book “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” is a monument to the struggle with the IPCC.

CodeTech says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“Although this is completely true, it is this message that a lot of people instantly shut down. In their eyes, you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, which closes ears and minds faster than a KKK member discussing racial issues.”
Although that may be true its best to dance around the issue and then let the warmmonger yell conspiracy theory. Then the correct response is to mock them. ‘Ah yes its a conspiracy theory put forward by a massive disinformation campaign funded by a giant fossil fuel industry conspiracy. A conspiracy theory created by a conspiracy … how quaint.’

just a thought – I hope the three usb sticks were not really blue, green and gold – as I would think the whistleblower may be concerned if such items were seen in his/her hands? or their IPCC computer? Hopefully, they are rather common!

Secrecy has nothing to do with science. It is, however, valued by those eager to control the message. Secrecy allows the IPCC to release its reports in an orchestrated manner to great media fanfare. It also permits the leaking of advance copies to sympathetic journalists.
These are Donnas words which really get to the heart of the alarmist cult. We owe a huge thanks to the leaker, lets hope we can get the remainder of the draft for reviewing in the public domain.

This is beautiful. Thanks to Donna and we should all support her and brindarle un felice anno novo – please contribute, she’s doing a good job! Just as we all should all contribute to WUWT, Roy Spencer, Bishop Hill and all those who are desmoking the blogs – but of course not desmokeblog and their minions…
Done it, will do it again! But be prepared: I’m a European liberal!

1. Crosspatch, CodeTech, Larry Ledwick—thanks very much for your insights too (even the bits that contradict the other bits!). As obvious as they may seem to you, I haven’t found such advice anywhere else.
2. Donna, thank you for this belated Christmas gift! Your place in the history books is assured.

Stunning News
Crowd sourcing this material before the draft AR5 is reviewed really puts the IPCC on the spot. But it is even harder for the scientists who allow their names to go on the bottom of AR5 as contributors to AR5; their reputations are now tied to how they react when errors are exposed in their draft during the reviewing process. Do they protect their reputations as scientists who take account of new material that goes against their beliefs or do they let errors be fudged?
I think you may see a peeling away of support by scientists who have been involved in putting AR5 together.

One wonders whether the IPCC has yet got around to setting a policy on bias and conflict of interest.
The following is taken from the gold zip file dated Dec 2011. but as you see they had not yet managed to establish a final policy at that time.
WGII LAM1 Draft Policy on Bias and Conflict of Interest
(December 2010)
The IPCC member countries are currently developing a conflict of interest policy for the IPCC. As of the first Lead Author Meeting (LAM1) for Working Group II (WGII), the policy is not complete.

iskoob says:
January 8, 2013 at 10:39 am
…
More generally (though somewhat OT), I’d love to see a thread where we could swap advice on how to break through the bunker of the alarmist mind (which, like it or not, is a human mind not fundamentally different from our own). Has anyone here ever succeeded in deprogramming a believer? How? What works, what doesn’t work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Actually I start with the Federal Reserve and the Bank Bailouts here in the USA. That is one place there is a meeting of minds between liberals and conservatives. I then move on to what is happening to food/farming esp. in the third world. The food riots in 2008 are remembered and most hate the WTO. The World Bank SAPs and Mr. Budhoo’s Public resignation from the IMF are key points to bring up.
Figure out which of those two subjects is of interest. One of the two usually will open up a gusher of opinions and you can skim over the other.
Then I head to Kissinger’s 1972 quote: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls energy can control whole continents; who controls money controls the world.”
I stay away from the science and point out the follow the money. There is plenty of evidence that the World Bank, GE, Enron, BP, Shell…. are in on the scam and making $$$ hand over fist by ‘controlling energy’ Do not forget the people in the UK freezing while the ‘lords’ who own the land the windmills are on collect big bucks.
Heck here is one: ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve and another Monsanto Profit Up 23% on Corn-Based Ethanol Demand Libs HATE monsnato. (Nice chart in the article of Monsanto’s ever climbing profits) 2nd Link
I then suggest they take a look at Democrats against Agenda 21 (Rosa Koire’s site)
I don’t try to talk of CAGW I just try to get them thinking about how they are being manipulated. OH do not forget The MSM is also controlled by the banks (J.P. Morgan) and G.E.
See : link for a discussion on the control of the MSM.
Quick summary on current policy on Food link
With Al Gore selling Current TV to Big Oil there are some really ticked off activists right now so it is a good time to point out the rest of the ‘traitors’ raking in the $$$ off CAGW.

I was wondering if these torrents were indexed at major torrent sites, so I started with the Pirate Bay. Nothing, then I googled “IPCC AR5 torrent” and got a Pirate Bay hit. They deleted last months AR5 leak (posted Dec 14), but Google cache has it: (link too big, google it).
I guess leaks are OK they come from loons like Assange, but not when it’s about IPCC corruption.

Gail Combs says:
January 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“…who controls money controls the world” (H.K.)
Well, yes. And, there is a dissident website dedicated to so-called high finance and international affairs — a WUWT for big money —http://www.zerohedge.com/
As an example, one could use a search engine to find Zerohedge articles on HSBC, one of the great banks that are too big to fail, with executives that are too big to jail. CAGW corruption is important, but it will be ‘cured’ if the Eddy Minimum produces a cooling trend beyond the Fudge Limit. Financial corruption is more difficult. But one can use ZH to follow the decline of the West… CAGW is only one facet.

Wow!!Donna; Thank you very much! If I can scrounge up some more extra cash I’ll buy you another double brandy!
And I don’t think the description “…Delinquent…” is quite correct anymore. Though, I’m not sure there are any suitable words that don’t basically mean ‘capital offence incarcerated’ or ‘d_mned for eternity’. Perhaps you’ll retitle your book for the next edition; ‘The D_mned Delinquent Maturity Challenged Parasite’?

I came across this in the blue zip download; (Blue Zip file, IPCC_GreyLiterature-GN.pdf file, Heading “Guidance on the use of non-published/non-peer-reviewed (“grey”) literature”, Chapter 5)
“…5. Treatment in IPCC Reports
Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources.1 These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published…”

Looks like they plan to ‘officially’ use grey literature. The ‘guidance’ section is useless in preventing the ethically challenged, aka CAGW alarmists, from including anything they desire.
Wasted some time reading many of the comments in the spreadsheets contained in the gold zip file. Quite disgusting! Many comments that are NOT related to science; instead there were frequent requests to ‘tune’ the language or utilize more references or to strengthen the ‘climate change’ language. While I doubt the grey literature proponents will be embarassed, I would think scientists would be mortified in having their pet desires for alarmisms published… “Nice fear mongering professor…”
Amused myself by rooting through document properties for some files. Looks like authors and creation/modification dates are preserved.
The Grey Literature PDF I quoted above shows a creation date of 3/11/2010 10:29:56AM and a last modification date of 3/11/2010 1:09:57PM. I wonder if that included the lunch break… The timing for the Grey Literature PDF is very interesting. That’s what; some fifty days after IPCC admitted the grey literature error in January 2010?? Fairly quick time for soliciting suggestions, exchanging drafts and a final rewrite for the IPCC to CYA (scientific acronym describing practices adhered to by CAGW scientists) before the next IPCC toilet paper for the disadvantaged publication.

What is now required is a very thorougher analysis of every section (chapter) of the IPCC report maybe by crowd sourcing and then a compilation of a report using the same chapter headings signed off by an eminent panel of scientists. This reworked report must be absolutely factual and backed only by credible sources of information and data sources, any comment on political intervention must contain the cost of interventions i.e. cost benefit analysis. It’s time to show this bunch of UN bureaucrates how a scientific analysis and situation report should be handled.

I downloaded the first order draft and almost the first item was a statement that fewer than 1000 articles had been published on climate change between 1970 and 1989, but that this had increased “10,000” fold to a total of 73,000 articles after 1989.
–from pp.3-4 of IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 1
I suppose this is possible if “fewer than 1,000” actually means “fewer than 7”.

Hannu has good advice. The issue is a mater of de-programming a cult member.
The enlightened ones feel morally and intellectually superior for believing the correct things and doing the correct things.
The thrill and comfort of being intellectually and morally superior is one big way a cult can hold a person. You don’t notice its effect upon you because you are always focused on the details – sin, proper habits, etc, – and not on the emotional pay-off.
To believe the cult views, you have to be surrounded by the nuttiness and keep getting a steady diet of the suposed truth, and at the same time, cpntrarian views have to be avoided in one of two ways: simple avoidance, such as being cut off from family, or disarming the arguments of the non-cult members.
Branding the denialists as totally motivated by the money of big oil, or intellectual dullardism, is a common approach.
So, follow Hannu’s advice: isolate one argument, and frame it as someone wants to convince me that [insert calamity here] north atlanitc hurricane season is becoming worse.
Then, set up the standards: does this mean more hurricanes? More major hurricanes? More ACE? More dollars of destruction? From when to when? THen, go matter-of-fact ot the actual data.
Wikipedia has the atlantic hurricane season data. You can get it all entered into Excel in about ten minutes, then rank, plot, etc.
Then revisit the agreed-upon assumptions.
That is part one.
Part two is developing the idea that the global warming supporters could have ulterior motives. They Gore etc. have framed themselves as virtuous. But if you can take one figure and show that the one figure is not virtuous, then that is the beginning of the crack in the edifice.
Gore is an investment fund manager. He is one of two partners who developed “Generation Investment Mamagement, LLC. This can be googled. You can look at this website and see what kind of business it is:
They take large sms of money from investors who want to invest in the “green” economy, and they invest this money on the behalf of the investors. They get a cut of the money along the way.
So, Gore manages investment funds in the green economy for large investors. The more that governments mandate green this and green that, the more that business grows. Therfore, Gore makes money when govts adopt “green” policies.
Now, we have the profit motive.
And, as Hannu said, just cover a little at a time, and don’t confront the person’s beliefs directly – instead, set up the issue as one between you and the green advocate or issue. “They are trying to tell me the planet is warming and so polar ice is disapeparing. But when I look at the data I see polar ice increasing (north plus south. Therefore, what am I supposed to belive about what they are telling me?”

Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources.1 These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published… [emphasis added -hro”
Sorry, that was the old rule – that they very rarely practiced. In fact, of the 5,600 non-peer-reviewed references in AR4, I found only 6 that were so designated!
So when the InterAcademy Council told the IPCC to smarten up and strengthen their existing rules, what did the IPCC do? They disappeared the rule … because it was “too impractical”.When task group says let’s “disappear” a rule, IPCC agrees

Billy Blofeld says:
January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!

Billy Blofeld says: @ January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
OMG 🙂
Climate science is indeed starting to become a transparent pursuit.
The only thing that seems sure is that he likes of the BBC will brazenly ignore this content and continue pushing alarmism for all they are worth…..
——————————————————————————————————————–
mogamboguru reply: @ January 9, 2013 at 1:15 am
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you ever stop to think that the easiest way to control the BBC employees is to invest 100% of their pensions in “green energy” and let them know that if the ‘Deniers’ win the war of words their pensions are toast?
A great way to make any closet fence-sitters into frothing at the mouth Greenies in public. Since the entertainment world is not know for its scientific background it works even better than it would in the usual corporation

Oh Donna
You make me stand up
You make me sit down, Donna
Sit down, Donna
Sit down
You make me stand up
Donna I’d stand on my head for you
(for those of us too young to remember the Ritchie Valens song but who know 10CC)

CodeTech says:
January 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm“The fact that there is a conspiracy doesn’t matter. Once someone perceives that you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, the discussion is over.”
All of what you said is so.
Too many people don’t understand exactly what makes a “conspiracy theory” implausible and yet makes this a different situation.
Such as 9/11 conspiracy theories fail at the most basic level, even before considering details, by: (1) imagined actions drastically against the inclinations of the bulk of the people hypothetically involved and (2) lack of stability upon dissenters escaping. Take a random group of a hundred U.S. government employees, and the number willing to mass-murder their fellow citizens is not a majority. There is not a selection filter making such so. Moreover, even a single one dissenting, to spill the beans, could lead to arrests and all breaking down.
In contrast, for instance, when Greenpeace makes wrong statements about nuclear power, that does not occur by an implausible conspiracy because (1) such corresponds to the natural inclinations and biases of a majority of the hardcore membership, while also (2) such survives dissenters.
Likewise, the CAGW movement exists because it:
(1) corresponds to what those involved naturally do anyway, with their natural inclination being to be biased without any explicit universal organized plot needed, rather just picking up on the subtle signals of what others are getting away with
(2) can quite survive thousands of dissenting scientists, as has been demonstrated
Regarding #1, there are many who, upon hearing about how Mann and Hansen were rewarded without the slightest penalties, are not disgusted but want to join in.
For this again:“The fact that there is a conspiracy doesn’t matter. Once someone perceives that you are presenting a “conspiracy theory”, the discussion is over.”
The best solution is to initially say nothing about deliberate dishonesty from many sources, as that takes time to realize, but to turn the trust of seeming “authority” against them. For instance, one can show http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif which is a nasa.gov address, regarding how much the keystone of global warming (the arctic) warmed (or not!) for the 1990s relative to the 1930s after most of a century of CO2 increase. And so on can be done with much else.
Any direct argument on the direct topic of global warming alone can only work on some people, though. Many others support CAGW propaganda because their ideology / politics make them want such to be believed by the public. Amongst a sample of a few dozen people significantly interacted with on the topic, I have actually yet to encounter any who really seem to greatly personally fear CAGW, but I have encountered many who want others to believe in it and spread false propaganda to support it. Presumably sincere believers in CAGW exist, despite me not having directly encountered them, but they would tend to be the ignorant casual kind, not the hardcore no-lifer elites who have argued with skeptics online for countless hours and unavoidably picked up some knowledge on the way.

Tis a funny thing, if you think about it.
The CAGW skeptic community will sped the next 6 or 8 months pulling this apart and critiquing it for free, then the final document will come out with all the criticisms dealt with or cleverly glossed over.
And that will be the published version, filed away for history….

The early release of documents does help to flatten all of their tires. Although the CAGW Bandwagon continues down the road, it’s listing and weaving, veering towards yonder ditch. None too soon for my liking, although that is a ways off still.

Gail Combs says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:27 am
Billy Blofeld says: @ January 8, 2013 at 7:14 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mogamboguru reply: @ January 9, 2013 at 1:15 am
Bill, they must!
Because the BBC has invested all of it’s employees’ retirement plans in “green energy”.
If they don’t keep pushing the AGW-agenda full-bore, all-out, no-holds-barred, 24/7/365, the’re TOAST!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did you ever stop to think that the easiest way to control the BBC employees is to invest 100% of their pensions in “green energy” and let them know that if the ‘Deniers’ win the war of words their pensions are toast?
A great way to make any closet fence-sitters into frothing at the mouth Greenies in public. Since the entertainment world is not know for its scientific background it works even better than it would in the usual corporation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good point, Gail. You may be pointing to something of real importance here. I think that this is worth some further investigation, because: “Follow The Money!” – has always had a very good reputation for of stopping scoundrels dead in their tracks.

I would like to compare the number of AR4 to AR5 expert reviewers for each chapter of all three Working Groups (WG1, WG2, WG3) in both the First Order Draft (FOD) and Second Order Draft (SOD).
If the number of FOD and SOD expert reviewers significantly increased for a chapter in AR5 compared to AR4, then does that imply there should be a decrease in AR5’s ‘a priori’ agenda driven systematic bias of the authors, lead authors and of those higher up the IPCC’s organizational hierarchy?
I think the answer is clearly the number of expert reviewers is not related in any way to mitigating against the continuation and/or amplification of agenda driven systematic bias in authors, lead authors and higher personnel in the process.
As review of the content on 3 leaked flash drives evolves, I am looking forward to seeing if my thinking is confirmed. Bets for beer anyone?
John
{this comment was also posted at Bishop Hill’s blog}

You just cant turn a AGW the good way around, even clear science cant help. What even the pure logic of the matter will not work.
They have learn and is told that 3+3=7 so they believe that. Even if half the globe covert whit ice they will stay to global warming. How? They give a spin to it.
In Holland there is nujij http://www.nujij.nl/wetenschap/toekomstige-stijging-zeewaterniveau-door-smeltend.20871867.lynkx
Her you see some agwers who are twisting around to get there argument right even if you have the mat tho tell them different.
The new IPCC rapport will do the same to them, they will make it work there way one way or another.

Kev-in-UK says:
January 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm
just a thought – I hope the three usb sticks were not really blue, green and gold – as I would think the whistleblower may be concerned if such items were seen in his/her hands? or their IPCC computer? Hopefully, they are rather common!

We’re not even talking 1gb of data. Could easily fit on one cheap flash drive. But more easily hidden would have been a micro SD card inside your phone. Heck, create an anonymous Dropbox account and throw it there.

A suggestion to iskoob and Pokerguy:
This may seem to be a little like ethical ju-jitsu, but there is a way to use the consensus argument without violating the “consensus is not proof” stance. By providing an accurate survey of the current numer of climatologists and others acceptablle as “experts” by the general public, showing that the 97% figure is indeed incorrect, then it is not necessary to argue that the consensus is on our side. Instead, it simply raises an easily understood argument that if the Climate Panic crowd is falsifying this important fact, what else may they be falsifying? That, after all, is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Something as easily verifiable as a survey makes a powerful argument, even if it is not, in itself, proof of the position. It’s admirable that you do not want to stoop to their level, but it seems ill-advised not to use what tools are at hand.

But wait, it has already been decided, without reading ithttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10858177
” Victoria University climate scientist Dr Jim Renwick, a lead author contributing to the AR5, said the current forecast of 4C of warming for the planet within the next century held large and frightening ramifications.
“We’re already just under a quarter of the way there at the moment.
“The governments of the world pledged in Copenhagen to limit the global warming to two degrees – that’s a very laudable goal, but nobody’s doing anything about it.”

Julain Williams in Wales says: January 8, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Stunning News
=================================
a thoughtful comment. Putting people in the glare produces profound effects in their thinking, behavior, etc. It takes control away from the manipulators. It changes the game.

Sorry, There have been over 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on Global Climate change between 1991 and 2012. Out of these, 24 explicitly reject the notion that the climate is changing and that mankind has no effect. It would seem as though there is consensus in the scientific community…
Please note, this does not include pseudo-science on either side of the argument.

Sorry, There have been over 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on Global Climate change between 1991 and 2012. Out of these, 24 explicitly reject the notion that the climate is changing and that mankind has no effect. It would seem as though there is consensus in the scientific community…
Please note, this does not include pseudo-science on either side of the argument.

I appreciate your saying “Sorry” because one should apologise for making such a meaningless post as yours which I quote.
You do not say
(a) how many of those papers accepted that climate is naturally changing
and
(b) how many of those papers accepted an anthropogenic cause of climate change as a ‘given’ then worked on that basis.
Importantly, the numbers and “consensus” don’t matter because this is about science: politics counts votes but science does not. As Einstein famously said when told that 100 scientists had rejected his “Jewish science”,
“It would only require one of them to provide one piece of evidence if I were wrong.”
Richard

Brambles,
How many papers say that mankind has no effect? Because everyone except Michael Mann knows the climate is always changing. [Mann preposterously claimed that the climate was essentially static from 1400 until the industrial revolution.]

Tis a funny thing, if you think about it.
The CAGW skeptic community will sped the next 6 or 8 months pulling this apart and critiquing it for free, then the final document will come out with all the criticisms dealt with or cleverly glossed over.
And that will be the published version, filed away for history….
“My point exactly, Mr Watts and Co are peer reviewing the documents.”

Brambles says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Sorry, There have been over 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on Global Climate change between 1991 and 2012. Out of these, 24 explicitly reject the notion that the climate is changing and that mankind has no effect. It would seem as though there is consensus in the scientific community…
Please note, this does not include pseudo-science on either side of the argument.

“To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

How many papers that “explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false” would get by peer review with that phrase intact? How many would even be submitted to peer review if they included that phrase? They therefore tend to be more circumspect and merely cite a discrepancy, some flaw (minor perhaps only in the author of this article’s opinion), etc.
Here’s a link to 1100+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptical arguments critical of ACC/AGW alarmism:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
========

The article states:
“Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, . . . .”

Strawman. The claim is not that skeptics are 100% “prevented” from being published, but that that it is difficult (and hence rare) to get them published, or to get them published without being watered down, as I hinted above.
==========

The article states:
“If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”
AND:
“A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.”

IOW, an article will be classified as skeptical only if it presents hard evidence. BUT an article will be counted accepting/endorsing even if it presents no hard evidence, but merely implicit opinion:

“Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

Denial must be explicit, but acceptance may be implicit. This double standard biases the results of this article. By how much is unknown. For that, the author should have indicated how many fall into the “implicitly accepting” category.
==========

The article states:
“If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”

But the weakness of the warmist case isn’t in the “hard evidence” so much as in the inferences drawn from that evidence, the selectivity applied in deciding which evidence is the most relevant, the inferences drawn from those relevant bits of evidence, the assumptions made, etc. It is at those matters where the main thrust of skepticism has been directed.
But journals want to publish “findings.” This biases them against publishing wide-ranging, argumentative critiques. (To be fair, they rarely publish similar argumentative essays from the warmist side either.) They have a just-the-facts attitude. But the facts don’t speak for themselves. Argumentation has therefore moved to other venues.
What’s needed is an online venue where viewpoints can be argued among credentialed scientists, with the peanut gallery roped off into a separate section where their comments won’t disrupt the discussion, but can be drawn upon by the participants if desired. (Seen but not heard, IOW.) This is what has finally gotten underway with the establishment this month of the Climate Dialogue site, at http://www.climatedialogue.org/
==========

The article concludes:
“Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

So what? (Irrelevant thesis.) Skeptics don’t deny that. What they deny is that this warming will continue at its current pace; that it would be very harmful if it did so—or even harmful on balance at all; and that there are amplifying factors that will accelerate the current trend. The alarmists’ case rests on the assumptions of strong positive feedbacks and the absence or weakness of negative feedbacks. That’s where their case is weakest.

The article states:
“By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.”
( http://jamespowell.org/styled/index.html )

Hmm . . . There’s nothing in that list by the following skeptical scientists, at least half of whom have presumably published papers properly classified as skeptical:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Claude Allègre, John Christy, David Douglass, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer.
I took their names from Wikipedia’s “List of [35] scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Here are four other names, half of whom I presume wrote articles that were missed: Zbigniew Jaworowski, Augusto Mangini, Nathan Paldor, and Richard Tol

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy